Exeter selectmen don't recommend dam removal

Friday

Jan 24, 2014 at 2:00 AM

EXETER — Once again a majority of the Board of Selectmen failed to support a citizen's petition to remove the Great Dam and restore the Exeter River, voting 3-2 not to recommend the citizen's petition warrant article.

Jeff McMenemy

EXETER — Once again a majority of the Board of Selectmen failed to support a citizen's petition to remove the Great Dam and restore the Exeter River, voting 3-2 not to recommend the citizen's petition warrant article.

That means the decision about whether the town wants to authorize the spending of $1.7 million to remove the dam will be up to the voters.

The article must pass by a 3/5 majority and town officials are moving forward to apply for a federal grant by the end of the month that could pay for as much as 75 percent of the cost.

The state Department of Environmental Services issued a letter of deficiency to the town in July 2000 saying the Great Dam could not withstand a 50-year storm event and the town had to act to address it.

Selectmen failed to pass any of the proposed alternatives during a meeting earlier this month — including dam removal — so a citizen's group filed the petition.

Brian Griset, one of the organizer's of the grass-roots campaign to put the article on the warrant, said removing the Great Dam will reduce flooding, improve water quality and restore the river to its natural state.

"It's been backed by the River Study Committee as the number one solution," Griset said during a nearly four-hour selectmen's meeting in Town Offices Tuesday.

Mike Lambert, one of the other organizers, told selectmen if the group had more time, "we would have had twice the signatures."

The group handed in the petition with 483 signatures last week.

Lambert said although many people he encountered had questions about the impact of dam removal, once those questions were answered, they were "fully behind the opportunity to make the choice themselves."

The board voted Tuesday along the same lines they did earlier this month during a debate that often became heated between members.

Clement noted before the debate began that typically selectmen do not vote to recommend or not recommend petition articles, but they did in this case because it calls for spending taxpayer money.

Chartrand described his opposition to the citizen's petition as his "toughest vote," and stressed he is for dam removal in the future, but repeated his claims that the board was "rushed into making a decision."

"I really feel this dam removal process was thrust at us and rushed forward almost immediately and I cannot support the citizen's petition for that reason," Chartrand said.

Gilman repeated her opposition to dam removal, because of its historic and cultural importance to the town.

"I'm not supporting this because I don't think this is the right solution," Gilman said.

But Ferraro argued the town has been studying the issue for nine years.

He noted the River Study Committee released a draft report six months ago and people were asked to submit questions, and all of those questions were then answered in writing.

"I disagree with Selectmen Chartrand that this is somehow a rush to process because (there's been) nine years of study, six months of having the draft report, getting the final report with all the questions answered in October, then 90 days of deliberations ... before it came to a vote the first week in January," Ferraro said. "It's the best for all the residents of the town."

Clement said he's been involved in the process for years, noting he's been "on and off the River Study Committee" since 2004.

He also disagreed with Chartrand's contention the process was rushed.

"This didn't materialize a couple of months ago. It's a process that's been in the works leading up to this for a long time," Clement said.

He also repeated an earlier assertion that he wished the board had shown more leadership and "could have made that decision, one way or the other."

He argued against waiting another year, saying if the citizen's petition had not been filed, the town would have lost out on a chance to obtain the federal Fish & Game grant.

"Even if we come back to this in the future, the opportunity to reduce the impact to the Exeter taxpayers has been lost," Clement said.

He reminded the board that DES told the town in January they needed town officials to send them a letter after the vote on the citizen's petition in March about how they were going to address the letter of deficiency.

"I can't sit here and say I'll be for dam removal in the future, but not now ... now is important, we're going to waste another year," Clement said.

Quandt disagreed, saying "it was a rushed process in the very end."

"The only thing Mr. Chartrand is asking is give it another year," Quandt said.

Chartrand also told Clement that he "gently" disputed the chairman's "characterization" about a lack of leadership by the board.

The River Study Committee — which for years studied the options to address the letter of deficiency from the state Department of Environmental Services — issued its final report in early November.

Stabilizing the dam in place by inserting "bundles of steel cables," into the dam would cost $1.16 million, and ensure that the structure would not topple over during a 50-year storm event, according to the report.

But it would "not mitigate future flooding damage," nor would it improve water quality, according to the report.

Modifying the dam through the use of a flashboard system would address flooding concerns, but not water quality issues, the report said, and it would cost $2.4 million.

Partial dam removal is projected to cost $2.6 million and will address flooding issues, but not improve water quality.

Never miss a story

Choose the plan that's right for you.
Digital access or digital and print delivery.

Advertise

Original content available for non-commercial use under a Creative Commons license, except where noted.
seacoastonline.com ~ 111 New Hampshire Ave., Portsmouth, NH 03801 ~ Privacy Policy ~ Terms Of Service